The Wright brothers just glided in 1903. They flew in 1908.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@simplex1
You have a great knowledge of original sources. Your correction of the attribution to Archdeacon of the remark about believing all the Wrights said they had done, needs to get into the history (assuming you're correct on that--someone else will need to check the sources). I am sure that in the standard narratives, there are lots of inaccuracies, and it would be very unusual if the Wrights, like all the other pioneers, hadn't prettied up the story they told the world.
But a historical narrative is NOT a legal case, to be cross-examined at every point in the hope that lots of little inaccuracies will reduce the total credibility to zero. Unless you can show that every account of the Wright brothers' doings comes from one single source, then the most likely story is at the intersection of the various accounts.
When I asked what they were doing between 1902 and 1908, I meant that they must have been doing some development in aviation. At the moment, you seem stuck on the idea that flight needs a certain minimum horsepower. But the Wrights' aeroplane looks a lot less draggy than 14bis, for example (Santos Dumont seems even to have stood up to conduct his apparatus, which already adds a bit of drag), so it is entirely possible that they could fly with less power--especially as it is recognised that take off was a bit marginal on their machines. Obviously there were better engines available in France than the Wrights had, but the author of that letter is exaggerating when he talks about "the only" lightweight engine. As I recollect, Manly had built a satisfactory engine for Langley's Aerodrome.
It is a good thing to correct inaccuracies in the received accounts. It is entirely reasonable to correct the oversimplification that the Wrights somehow "invented" the aeroplane--Santos Dumont and the Voisins would have flown if the Wrights had stuck to bicycles, Langley might have done the work that Curtiss did for him. If he hadn't died in an accident, Lilienthal might have fitted an engine to one of his hang gliders, and then we'd be having a debate about whether it counted as a first flight if take off was assisted by the pilot running like buggery (what a film clip that would have made).
But they might not have done it quite so quickly, which is what I take it Ferber is saying:
Without the press publicity for the Wrights, the French pioneers would not have known that powered flight was now possible. I'm reminded of the claim that the biggest thing that all the spies in the Manhattan Project did for the Soviet Union was to give them the knowledge that an atomic bomb could be made.
So, good to correct inaccuracies, but that does not prove the Wrights were fundamentally lying, and all your corrections are only arguments against their achievements if you have already decided beforehand that they were lying, and are looking for holes in their story. The sorts of thing you are pointing to are not the kind of inconsistencies that would lead someone to say, "What I have believed all along is a tissue of fabrication."
So, what is the fundamental reason for not believing the standard account?
You have a great knowledge of original sources. Your correction of the attribution to Archdeacon of the remark about believing all the Wrights said they had done, needs to get into the history (assuming you're correct on that--someone else will need to check the sources). I am sure that in the standard narratives, there are lots of inaccuracies, and it would be very unusual if the Wrights, like all the other pioneers, hadn't prettied up the story they told the world.
But a historical narrative is NOT a legal case, to be cross-examined at every point in the hope that lots of little inaccuracies will reduce the total credibility to zero. Unless you can show that every account of the Wright brothers' doings comes from one single source, then the most likely story is at the intersection of the various accounts.
When I asked what they were doing between 1902 and 1908, I meant that they must have been doing some development in aviation. At the moment, you seem stuck on the idea that flight needs a certain minimum horsepower. But the Wrights' aeroplane looks a lot less draggy than 14bis, for example (Santos Dumont seems even to have stood up to conduct his apparatus, which already adds a bit of drag), so it is entirely possible that they could fly with less power--especially as it is recognised that take off was a bit marginal on their machines. Obviously there were better engines available in France than the Wrights had, but the author of that letter is exaggerating when he talks about "the only" lightweight engine. As I recollect, Manly had built a satisfactory engine for Langley's Aerodrome.
It is a good thing to correct inaccuracies in the received accounts. It is entirely reasonable to correct the oversimplification that the Wrights somehow "invented" the aeroplane--Santos Dumont and the Voisins would have flown if the Wrights had stuck to bicycles, Langley might have done the work that Curtiss did for him. If he hadn't died in an accident, Lilienthal might have fitted an engine to one of his hang gliders, and then we'd be having a debate about whether it counted as a first flight if take off was assisted by the pilot running like buggery (what a film clip that would have made).
But they might not have done it quite so quickly, which is what I take it Ferber is saying:
Sans cette campagne de presse, Santos-Dumont, le grand ballonniste, n'aurait pas vu que le moment était venu, il n'aurait pas mis sa rapidité d'exécution et son audacieux courage au service de la cause, le public n'aurait pas été frappé d'évidence.
Delagrange aurait continué à sculpter de délicieuses statues et n'aurait pas commandé un aéroplane à Voisin...
Delagrange aurait continué à sculpter de délicieuses statues et n'aurait pas commandé un aéroplane à Voisin...
So, good to correct inaccuracies, but that does not prove the Wrights were fundamentally lying, and all your corrections are only arguments against their achievements if you have already decided beforehand that they were lying, and are looking for holes in their story. The sorts of thing you are pointing to are not the kind of inconsistencies that would lead someone to say, "What I have believed all along is a tissue of fabrication."
So, what is the fundamental reason for not believing the standard account?
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is very well written.
But a historical narrative is NOT a legal case, to be cross-examined at every point in the hope that lots of little inaccuracies will reduce the total credibility to zero. Unless you can show that every account of the Wright brothers' doings comes from one single source, then the most likely story is at the intersection of the various accounts.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 57-59 seconds flight allegedly made on Dec. 17, 1903 has to be replicated by somebody.
The claims of an experimentalist, in general, have to be replicated by other experimentalists. If despite all efforts nobody in the world reaches similar results than something is wrong with those claims.
The claims of an experimentalist, in general, have to be replicated by other experimentalists. If despite all efforts nobody in the world reaches similar results than something is wrong with those claims.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 57-59 seconds flight allegedly made on Dec. 17, 1903 has to be replicated by somebody.
Allegedly Lindbergh flew the Atlantic in a Ryan, no one has replicated that feat. Kingsford Smith allegedly flew the Pacific in a Fokker, no one has replicated that feat.
NASA even allege that they have landed a man on the moon.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
August 13, 1904 - Three people witnessed a flight made by Wilbur Wright and all three remained silent.
There is a picture, allegedly made on Aug. 13, 1904, showing four people, one piloting the plane (Wilbur Wright), the other at some distance apparently running behind the plane and two people in the background in a vehicle drawn by one horse. We also do not have to forget about the one who took the picture. Therefore, there were at least three witnesses (excepting the Wright brothers) who saw the flight. Mysteriously all these people remained silent.
A simple and logical explanation would be that the picture was not made in 1904 but much later, after Aug 8. 1908.
Flight 30: machine close to the ground, Wilbur piloting, covering a distance of 784 feet in 22 3/4 seconds; Huffman Prairie, Dayton, Ohio, 1904 Aug. 13
Source, Library of Congress, [Flight 30: machine close to the ground, Wilbur piloting, covering a distance of 784 feet in 22 3/4 seconds; Huffman Prairie, Dayton, Ohio]
There is a picture, allegedly made on Aug. 13, 1904, showing four people, one piloting the plane (Wilbur Wright), the other at some distance apparently running behind the plane and two people in the background in a vehicle drawn by one horse. We also do not have to forget about the one who took the picture. Therefore, there were at least three witnesses (excepting the Wright brothers) who saw the flight. Mysteriously all these people remained silent.
A simple and logical explanation would be that the picture was not made in 1904 but much later, after Aug 8. 1908.
Flight 30: machine close to the ground, Wilbur piloting, covering a distance of 784 feet in 22 3/4 seconds; Huffman Prairie, Dayton, Ohio, 1904 Aug. 13
Source, Library of Congress, [Flight 30: machine close to the ground, Wilbur piloting, covering a distance of 784 feet in 22 3/4 seconds; Huffman Prairie, Dayton, Ohio]
Join Date: May 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mysteriously all these people remained silent.
A simple and logical explanation would be that the picture was not made in 1904 but much later, after Aug 8. 1908.
A simple and logical explanation would be that the picture was not made in 1904 but much later, after Aug 8. 1908.
That's genius.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Alaska
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The flight of Lindbergh was replicated. So, there is evidence the plane could really cross the Atlantic flying non stop, from continental North America to continental Europe.
see: Wright-Bellanca WB-2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
see: Wright-Bellanca WB-2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Simplex - as previously posted by another forum member - nobody is going to take you seriously if you use Wiki as a source for information !
I use Wiki for non important stuff such as Rock band information etc but not anything to do with aviation !
You still have not told us why you are so personally keen to discredit the Wright Brothers - revisionist history and conspiracy theories are very fashionable but the truth is usually more mundane than the conspiracy theory would like .
I use Wiki for non important stuff such as Rock band information etc but not anything to do with aviation !
You still have not told us why you are so personally keen to discredit the Wright Brothers - revisionist history and conspiracy theories are very fashionable but the truth is usually more mundane than the conspiracy theory would like .
Dunno about the aug 1904 flights but there was of course Amos Root and his article describing the sept 1904 flights in GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE published in Jan 1905.
And Simplex - it is a waste of time to pedantically criticise or question his words as Amos Root was not technically trained and the language of aviation had not yet evolved - so 'flapping and snapping' was probably his amateur description of the 'beat' of the props and the chain/sprocket noises from the prop drive system,which was probably fairly noisy and also the open exhaust ports on the engine !
Edit for clarity - Four Paddles = Prop Blades
And Simplex - it is a waste of time to pedantically criticise or question his words as Amos Root was not technically trained and the language of aviation had not yet evolved - so 'flapping and snapping' was probably his amateur description of the 'beat' of the props and the chain/sprocket noises from the prop drive system,which was probably fairly noisy and also the open exhaust ports on the engine !
The engine is started and got up to speed. The machine is held until ready to start by a sort of trap to be sprung when all is ready; then with a tremendous flapping and snapping of the four-cylinder engine, the huge machine springs aloft. ”
“When it first turned that circle, and came near the starting-point, I was right in front of it; and I said then, and believe still, it was one of the grandest sights, if not the grandest sight of my life. Imagine a locomotive that has left its track, and is climbing up in the air right toward you – a locomotive without any wheels, we will say, but with white wings instead, we will further say – a locomotive made of aluminum.”
“Well, now imagine this white locomotive, with wings that spread 20 feet each way, coming right toward you with a tremendous flap of its propellers, and you will have something like what I saw. The younger brother bade me move to one side for fear it might come down suddenly; but I tell you friends, the sensation that one feels in such a crisis is something hard to describe.”
Root asked plenty of questions. One had to do with lift.
“I confess it is not clear to me, even yet, how that little aluminum engine, with four paddles, does the work. I asked the question,
“Boys, would that engine and these two propellers raise the machine from the ground if placed horizontally above it?”
“Certainly not, Mr. Root. They would not lift a quarter of its weight.”
“When it first turned that circle, and came near the starting-point, I was right in front of it; and I said then, and believe still, it was one of the grandest sights, if not the grandest sight of my life. Imagine a locomotive that has left its track, and is climbing up in the air right toward you – a locomotive without any wheels, we will say, but with white wings instead, we will further say – a locomotive made of aluminum.”
“Well, now imagine this white locomotive, with wings that spread 20 feet each way, coming right toward you with a tremendous flap of its propellers, and you will have something like what I saw. The younger brother bade me move to one side for fear it might come down suddenly; but I tell you friends, the sensation that one feels in such a crisis is something hard to describe.”
Root asked plenty of questions. One had to do with lift.
“I confess it is not clear to me, even yet, how that little aluminum engine, with four paddles, does the work. I asked the question,
“Boys, would that engine and these two propellers raise the machine from the ground if placed horizontally above it?”
“Certainly not, Mr. Root. They would not lift a quarter of its weight.”
Last edited by longer ron; 21st Jun 2014 at 07:04.
eetrojan
even more genius than that eetrojan - they also purposely crashed the aircraft a few times just to get some good pictures 
So, let me recap. Your "simple and logical" explanation is that after flying in front of thousands of amazed onlookers in Le Mans, France, on Aug. 8, 1908, the Wright brothers rubbed their hands together in a sinister fashion, cackled like fiends, and then slithered back to Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, and also to Dayton, Ohio, where they systematically manufactured phony records and related photographs for various aircraft that they had finally learned to fly, presumably due to their being in the close proximity of so many French people (Vive la France!), all in order to falsely contend that they began flying in 1903, 1904, and 1905 - while enlisting the silence of the many co-conspirators shown in the fake photographs - when, in fact, the August 8, 1908 flights in Le Mans, France were really their first flights?
The OP's title of this thread, to me at least, does not deny the existence of Wright flying machines pre-1908.
I'm still a bit uneasy about:
a. The initial apparent inability of the Flyer to get airborne without there being a stiff breeze.
b. The use of the catapult in still air ( bearing in mind the power requirement to get airborne greatly exceeding that to stay there).
c. The late adoption, post the European visit, of an undercarriage, over five years after the initial flight.
d. The less then acceptable results of initial test by the U.S. Army , despite the specification being apparently Wright influenced. The aircraft was delivered to Ft. Myer on August 20, 1908 The Army officially accepted the "airplane" on August 2, 1909, after a ten month delay with several contract extensions, the Wrights being in default. I accept that this could be due, in part at least, to the fatal crash .
Unease does not imply disbelief in what was achieved , but these points of contention would be of some concern to me in arguing the case for the Wrights' claims as popularly espoused.
I'm still a bit uneasy about:
a. The initial apparent inability of the Flyer to get airborne without there being a stiff breeze.
b. The use of the catapult in still air ( bearing in mind the power requirement to get airborne greatly exceeding that to stay there).
c. The late adoption, post the European visit, of an undercarriage, over five years after the initial flight.
d. The less then acceptable results of initial test by the U.S. Army , despite the specification being apparently Wright influenced. The aircraft was delivered to Ft. Myer on August 20, 1908 The Army officially accepted the "airplane" on August 2, 1909, after a ten month delay with several contract extensions, the Wrights being in default. I accept that this could be due, in part at least, to the fatal crash .
Unease does not imply disbelief in what was achieved , but these points of contention would be of some concern to me in arguing the case for the Wrights' claims as popularly espoused.
Last edited by Haraka; 21st Jun 2014 at 15:45.
No arguments with any of that Haraka but - as I have posted before - even if you have a problem with the criteria for the 1903 flight - then by 1905 the Wrights were way ahead of anybody else.
It is not so much Simplex's questioning of the Wrights ability to fly but his dogmatic questioning of the integrity of the Wright Brothers !
It is not so much Simplex's questioning of the Wrights ability to fly but his dogmatic questioning of the integrity of the Wright Brothers !
“After the miserable demonstration in France on 8 August 1908,” a French engine was fitted and “the Wright flew at last. But its performance was immediately outdone by French performances and it went back to America.”
Perhaps a little more balanced view ...
While working on his machine at the Bollee factory, Wilbur did something, probably just because it seemed the natural to do, with no thought of the impression it would make, that delighted the hearts of the factory employees. He kept the same hours that the others did and his whole behavior was as if he were simply one more workman. When the whistle blew for the noon hour, he knocked off along with the others, and went, in overalls to lunch This lack of any sign of aloofness caused much favorable comment.
Wilbur’s greatest admirer was Leon Bollee himself. Though they had no common language, they managed to exchange ideas and formed a warm friendship. Bollee, a jolly rotund man with a saucy little beard, was ever ready to be of any service. Incidentally, though Bollee had no thought of personal gain when he generously offered the use of space in his factory, the fact that Wilbur worked on his plane there did not hurt the sale of Bollee cars.
But the work was soon transferred from the Bollee factory to the field at Hunaudieres where a hastily constructed hangar had been built. Another item of preparation was the setting of a launching derrick, similar to the one the Wrights had first used on their experiments at the Huffman pasture. Huge weights were attached at one end of a rope which ran over pulleys and had a metal ring at the other end to be caught at the front of the plane. When the plane shot forward, the rope automatically dropped away. As at previous trials, the plane when ready to take off rested on a rail, iron-shod, wooden track, about sixty feet long.
Not until August 8, did Wilbur attempt his first flight. A good-sized crowd was present, the majority from Le Mans and the near-by countryside, but it included many members of the Aero Club of France and various newspapers from Paris.
In describing the scene, years afterward, Hart O. Berg said: “Wilbur Wright’s quiet self-confidence was reassuring. One thing that, to me at least, made his appearance all the more dramatic, was that he was not dressed as if about to something daring or unusual. He, of course, had no special pilot’s helmet or jacket, since no such garb yet existed, but appeared in the ordinary gray suit he usually wore, and a cap. And he had on, as he nearly always did when not in overalls, a high, starched collar.”
At least one man among the spectators felt certain the flight would not be a success. That was M. Archdeacon, prominent in the Aero Club. So sure was M. Archdeacon that Wilbur Wright would be deflated that, as the time set for the flight approached, he was explaining to those near him in the grandstand just what was “wrong” about the design of the Wright machine, and why it could not be expected to fly well.
Wilbur’s immediate preparations had been made with great care. First of all, the starting rail had been set precisely in the direction of and against the wind. The engine was started by two men, each pulling down a blade of the two propellers and the plane was held back by a wire attached to a hook and releasing trigger near the pilot’s seat. After the engine was warmed up, Fleury, Berg’s chauffer, took hold of the right wing. Wilbur released the trigger and the plane was pulled forward by the falling weights. Fleury kept it in balance until the accelerating speed left him behind. By the time it had reached the end of the rail, the plane left the track with enough speed to sustain itself and climb.
At some distance, directly in front of Wilbur as he started to rise, were tall trees, but they gave him no concern. He bore off easily to the left and went ahead in a curve that brought him back almost over the starting point. Then he swung to the right and made another great turn. Most of the time he was thirty or thirty-five feet above the ground. He was in the air only one minute and forty-five seconds, but he had made history.
The crowd knew well they had “seen something” and behaved accordingly. In the excited babel of voices one or two phrases could be heard again and again. “Cet homme a conquis l’air!” “Il n’est pas bluffeur. Yes, truly Wilbur had conquered the air, and he was no bluffer. That American word “bluffer had been used during the time that reports from the United States about the Wrights had been stirring controversy in France. Now “bluffeur” became, more than ever, a part of the French language. “To think that one would call the Wrights ‘bluffeurs’!” lamented the French press over and over again.
For the next few minutes after Wilbur landed, Berg was kept busy laughingly warding off agitated Frenchmen who sought to bestow a formal accolade by kissing Wilbur in the French manner on both cheeks. He suspected that Wilbur might consider that carrying enthusiasm too far.
One of the skeptical members of the Aero Club, Edouard Surcouf, a balloonist, had arrived at the field late, barely in time to see Wilbur in the air. Now he was about the most enthusiastic of all. He rushed up to Berg, exclaiming: “C’est le plus grand erreur du siècle!” Disbelieving the claims of the Wrights may not have been the biggest error of the century, but obviously it had at least been a mistake.
The only person who offered criticism or minimized the brilliance of his feat was Wilbur Wright. When asked by a reporter for the Paris edition of the New York Herald if he was satisfied with the exhibition, he replied, according to that paper: “Not altogether. When in the air I made no less than ten mistakes owing to the fact that I have been laying off from flying so long: but I corrected them rapidly, so I don’t suppose anyone watching really knew I had made any mistake at all. I was very pleased at the way my first flight in France was received.”
A crowd of Aero Club members and other admirers were insistent that Wilbur should go back to Paris with them to celebrate the achievement at the best dinner to be obtained in that center of inspired cooking. But Wilbur just thanked them and said he wished to give his machine a little going over. Early that evening, so the newspapers reported, “he was asleep at the side of his creation.”
Wilbur’s greatest admirer was Leon Bollee himself. Though they had no common language, they managed to exchange ideas and formed a warm friendship. Bollee, a jolly rotund man with a saucy little beard, was ever ready to be of any service. Incidentally, though Bollee had no thought of personal gain when he generously offered the use of space in his factory, the fact that Wilbur worked on his plane there did not hurt the sale of Bollee cars.
But the work was soon transferred from the Bollee factory to the field at Hunaudieres where a hastily constructed hangar had been built. Another item of preparation was the setting of a launching derrick, similar to the one the Wrights had first used on their experiments at the Huffman pasture. Huge weights were attached at one end of a rope which ran over pulleys and had a metal ring at the other end to be caught at the front of the plane. When the plane shot forward, the rope automatically dropped away. As at previous trials, the plane when ready to take off rested on a rail, iron-shod, wooden track, about sixty feet long.
Not until August 8, did Wilbur attempt his first flight. A good-sized crowd was present, the majority from Le Mans and the near-by countryside, but it included many members of the Aero Club of France and various newspapers from Paris.
In describing the scene, years afterward, Hart O. Berg said: “Wilbur Wright’s quiet self-confidence was reassuring. One thing that, to me at least, made his appearance all the more dramatic, was that he was not dressed as if about to something daring or unusual. He, of course, had no special pilot’s helmet or jacket, since no such garb yet existed, but appeared in the ordinary gray suit he usually wore, and a cap. And he had on, as he nearly always did when not in overalls, a high, starched collar.”
At least one man among the spectators felt certain the flight would not be a success. That was M. Archdeacon, prominent in the Aero Club. So sure was M. Archdeacon that Wilbur Wright would be deflated that, as the time set for the flight approached, he was explaining to those near him in the grandstand just what was “wrong” about the design of the Wright machine, and why it could not be expected to fly well.
Wilbur’s immediate preparations had been made with great care. First of all, the starting rail had been set precisely in the direction of and against the wind. The engine was started by two men, each pulling down a blade of the two propellers and the plane was held back by a wire attached to a hook and releasing trigger near the pilot’s seat. After the engine was warmed up, Fleury, Berg’s chauffer, took hold of the right wing. Wilbur released the trigger and the plane was pulled forward by the falling weights. Fleury kept it in balance until the accelerating speed left him behind. By the time it had reached the end of the rail, the plane left the track with enough speed to sustain itself and climb.
At some distance, directly in front of Wilbur as he started to rise, were tall trees, but they gave him no concern. He bore off easily to the left and went ahead in a curve that brought him back almost over the starting point. Then he swung to the right and made another great turn. Most of the time he was thirty or thirty-five feet above the ground. He was in the air only one minute and forty-five seconds, but he had made history.
The crowd knew well they had “seen something” and behaved accordingly. In the excited babel of voices one or two phrases could be heard again and again. “Cet homme a conquis l’air!” “Il n’est pas bluffeur. Yes, truly Wilbur had conquered the air, and he was no bluffer. That American word “bluffer had been used during the time that reports from the United States about the Wrights had been stirring controversy in France. Now “bluffeur” became, more than ever, a part of the French language. “To think that one would call the Wrights ‘bluffeurs’!” lamented the French press over and over again.
For the next few minutes after Wilbur landed, Berg was kept busy laughingly warding off agitated Frenchmen who sought to bestow a formal accolade by kissing Wilbur in the French manner on both cheeks. He suspected that Wilbur might consider that carrying enthusiasm too far.
One of the skeptical members of the Aero Club, Edouard Surcouf, a balloonist, had arrived at the field late, barely in time to see Wilbur in the air. Now he was about the most enthusiastic of all. He rushed up to Berg, exclaiming: “C’est le plus grand erreur du siècle!” Disbelieving the claims of the Wrights may not have been the biggest error of the century, but obviously it had at least been a mistake.
The only person who offered criticism or minimized the brilliance of his feat was Wilbur Wright. When asked by a reporter for the Paris edition of the New York Herald if he was satisfied with the exhibition, he replied, according to that paper: “Not altogether. When in the air I made no less than ten mistakes owing to the fact that I have been laying off from flying so long: but I corrected them rapidly, so I don’t suppose anyone watching really knew I had made any mistake at all. I was very pleased at the way my first flight in France was received.”
A crowd of Aero Club members and other admirers were insistent that Wilbur should go back to Paris with them to celebrate the achievement at the best dinner to be obtained in that center of inspired cooking. But Wilbur just thanked them and said he wished to give his machine a little going over. Early that evening, so the newspapers reported, “he was asleep at the side of his creation.”
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too have unease at some of the facts surrounding the Wrights as listed by Haraka, and I also include all the litigation and wrangling - I never fully trust anything where lawyers and politicians are involved! The fact that the Wrights were so litigious and ambitious, plus the fact that some of their Patent claims covered "Prior Art" leads me to a feeling of unease about their integrity.
I have doubts about the witness testimony surrounding several early flights, including the Wright's; for example, Doug, Etheridge and Moore identifying a precise location in sandy coastal territory 25 years after the event must be questionable. I am not saying any is wrong or fraudulent, just that I do not feel it is safe to trust it fully, and there are other examples.
I strongly agree with FlightlesParrots words:
It is a good thing to correct inaccuracies in the received accounts. It is entirely reasonable to correct the oversimplification that the Wrights somehow "invented" the aeroplane--Santos Dumont and the Voisins would have flown if the Wrights had stuck to bicycles, Langley might have done the work that Curtiss did for him. If he hadn't died in an accident, Lilienthal might have fitted an engine to one of his hang gliders, and then we'd be having a debate about whether it counted as a first flight if take off was assisted by the pilot running like buggery (what a film clip that would have made).
Personally I would add Percy Pilcher after Lillienthal !
I have doubts about the witness testimony surrounding several early flights, including the Wright's; for example, Doug, Etheridge and Moore identifying a precise location in sandy coastal territory 25 years after the event must be questionable. I am not saying any is wrong or fraudulent, just that I do not feel it is safe to trust it fully, and there are other examples.
I strongly agree with FlightlesParrots words:
It is a good thing to correct inaccuracies in the received accounts. It is entirely reasonable to correct the oversimplification that the Wrights somehow "invented" the aeroplane--Santos Dumont and the Voisins would have flown if the Wrights had stuck to bicycles, Langley might have done the work that Curtiss did for him. If he hadn't died in an accident, Lilienthal might have fitted an engine to one of his hang gliders, and then we'd be having a debate about whether it counted as a first flight if take off was assisted by the pilot running like buggery (what a film clip that would have made).
Personally I would add Percy Pilcher after Lillienthal !
The trouble is - if you doubt the testimony about the dec 17th flight - you also doubt the photograph clearly showing level ground -
As I have said before - the Wrights made a big mistake getting involved in the patent wars etc - but in my view that should not detract from their technical achievements and I do not believe for one minute that they were dishonest about their flights - au contraire they kept excellent notes and took hundreds of photographs.
As I have said before - the Wrights made a big mistake getting involved in the patent wars etc - but in my view that should not detract from their technical achievements and I do not believe for one minute that they were dishonest about their flights - au contraire they kept excellent notes and took hundreds of photographs.